Health Alert

Hazardous asbestos fibers at the WTC exposed more than 110,000 people to the dangerous material; this includes 80,000 tower workers, 30,000 area residents and nearly 4,000 first responders. Asbestos exposure is directly linked to mesothelioma cancer and other asbestos-related diseases.

Attend a Presidential Campaign Speech Q&A to Put AE911Truth Question in the Spotlight

What began in Iowa on Tuesday, January 3, 2012 and will continue to June 26 is an American tradition that AE911Truth needs you to participate in. Americans will be heading to their caucuses and primaries to select their preferred Presidential candidate. There are currently many Republican candidates traversing states and making local appearances in small venues. This gives you, the supporters of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a unique accessible opportunity to interact with the candidates and to make a simple statement or ask a simple question to educate and pin them down on the issue of a new investigation and have them state their stance – publicly, and ideally in front of the media. You can find the candidate’s web-sites to see where they will be meeting voters near you.

Because it is important to engage the candidate and the other people in attendance with as much finesse as possible, we suggest:

Option 1: (A statement)

This statement is fairly concise yet includes the important detail that we are not alone in our call for a real investigation. By not asking a specific question, and thereby not eliciting a response, it may very well have more impact during the awkward moment following with the audience, media, and the candidate himself.

[Senator/Governor/Representative or other appropriate title] ___________:

Many 9/11 victims family members have called for a real investigation into the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and high-rise Building 7. Even Bob Graham, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has called for further investigation into the 9/11 attacks. Several of the 9/11 Commissioners cast doubts on their own report, complaining of a lack of cooperation by the Bush Administration and outright lies from top military officers. One Commissioner resigned in protest, refusing to be part of another government whitewash, which he later termed a “national scandal.”

Numerous 9/11 family members support the 1,600 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth who are demanding a new investigation into the explosive destruction of the three high-rises.

We look forward to your support with this vital American issue when you become president.

Thank you!

OPTION 2: (A question)

[Senator/Governor/Representative or other appropriate title] _________:

I have a question about your commitment to openness and transparency of the governmental process that we Americans have come to expect.

More than 1600 independent architects and engineers are calling for a real investigation of the destruction of the World Trade Center twin towers and the lesser-known Building 7 on 9/11. They are demanding scientifically valid engineering and criminal investigations into these events. It’s inexcusable that no such investigations have yet occurred. NIST also admitted that Building 7 experienced freefall, which rules out fire as the explanation. The 1600 architects and engineers cite overwhelming evidence of explosive controlled demolition – and they are backed by 9/11 victims' family members.

When you are elected President will you do the right thing and actively support a real investigation that examines the evidence at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth at AE911Truth.org?

Because the typical response to someone questioning 9/11 is either a non-response, or a dismissal by saying “that question is an insult to the American People,” “That question doesn’t deserve an answer,” etc. we need to frame the question carefully and stick to the facts. Don't try to engage in other public back and forth about any other 9/11 issues except to get a “Yes” from the candidate. Don’t stop until you get a “Yes” or a “No.” If you get a “No” then it would be appropriate to ask:

“Does that mean that you do not support an open and transparent government for the American People where government engineers must base their reports on science and physics?”

Print out the above and practice reading it out loud. Please try to have an associate or friend with you in order to record your statement on video. You never know when one of these candidates is going to actually voice support for a new investigation. Even their denials are important to document. We will post the results on our website. Please use our Contact Us page to send us your results and any feedback.

Excellent suggestions. As most candidates would rather not have to deal with these questions at all, I think it would also be good to highlight the contrast between the political establishment's resistance to answering such questions with their readiness to continue using the official 9/11 account to justify policies that would otherwise have lacked sufficient public support. People like to portray this movement as a bunch of 'obsessives.' It doesn't hurt to remind people that WE weren't the ones who made this the event that 'changed everything.'

Help people to appreciate how contradictory it is for politicians to claim that this event is so important as to serve as the basis for a slew of controversial policies, but not important enough to help resolve all these outstanding questions.

While the interaction is to be with the candidates, the impression which we might make on those in attendance could prove to be even more significant.

but I feel it's a little too long winded for what, in most cases, might only be a few seconds to interact with the candidate among a slew of people vying for attention. Also, the question, as framed above, will likely make the candidate feel trapped that answering in the affirmative will mean he supports AE911Truth.org, an organization that to him will not likely be familiar.

If all we really want or need is an acknowledgement that a new truly independent investigation of 9/11 is warranted, then we should ask the question differently, within the context of current public discussion.

For example:

"Given that the public does not really understand the reality of blowback, do you feel that a new 9/11 investigation is warranted?"

"NIST classified their investigation of the collapse of Building 7. As president and in the interest of government transparency, will you declassify this material?"

"When your administration launches a new 9/11 investigation, will you follow the hard evidence no matter where it leads?"

Notice the last question assumes the candidate is for a new 9/11 investigation. That's their problem. Let them tell you they are not.

if the candidate says something ridiculous like "What's Building 7?" I would not go easy on them. A proper reply should be something indignantly expressed like "It's been more than ten years since 9/11 and you still don't know what Building 7 is? And you want to be president of the United States?"

I think it's an excellent idea to confront the politicians over 911. However,I wouldn't present the questions about 911 as only being about what brought the buildings down because then it is far too easy to dismiss all questions about 911 has the rantings of crazy conspiracy theorists.
I would suggest we stick with questions that actually have the potential to wake people up and for which there are no debunking resources. Questions like: Without 911 would the United States still need to maintain a huge ,Cold War sized military today?, Who would "the enemy" be today without 911?, What would the Defense,CIA & FBI budgets be like today without 911?, What did 911 do to the budgets of the agencies that we are asked to believe innocently failed us on 911?, Would the American people support a war if they were told it was for control of another nation's resources (Oil)?
I know these questions wont be popular here,but they are the ones anyone who actually wanted to wake up the masses to the Truth of 911 Should (and would) be asking.

Please help support our existence so we can do more road trips to primary states and ask the questions that are never asked.
Support We Are Change and help us keep making videos like this:http://www.wearechange.org/?page_id=9453

The reason I like Newt is because Newt is the only candidate in the Republican line-up who can claim any semblance of being an intellectual.

That's the primary reason why he's never going to be the Republican front runner, because if he's not verbally savaging "hippies", people see him for what he really is and that is too intelligent for the party of church and gun-toting Jesus.

Regardless of whether or not Newt is going to be the front runner, by electing to use his brains instead of the political underbelly Newt is exposing himself to actual discussion.

And when actual discussion is allowed around political figures it's going to be carnage; it's going to be ruthless ideological devastation never to be recovered from. So, in other words, I welcome Newt's intellectual engagement and I'm eagerly waiting for the most gifted mind of the most deluded political movement to get his clock cleaned. Thoroughly.

So, in other words, keep targeting Newt, because Newt is an interesting target. He's not going to have any 'easy outs' available to him.

I agree with your assessment of Newt and cornering him, but have your ever read any of his Civil War redux novels? I made a trade with a conservative sitting next to me on a plane right after 9/11, that he would watch 9/11 Loose Change if I would read Newt's Gettysburg. He got the better end of the bargain. Gettysburg is so poorly written even with the help of another professor friend. It's not that they made the South have a better outcome, but they don't know how to make the characters believable and interact with each other rather clumsily talking in propaganda mode, unlike Michael Shaara's great Killer Angels. So when you say Newt's an intellectual, I'd say he has his limits.

From the first link, if it wasn't already a rogues gallery to begin with, two more names catch my attention: John Lehman, former member of the 9/11 commission and Dov Zakheim, PNAC signee and Pentagon comptroller who was thus responsible for quality in accounting (lol) during the "missing trillions"-scandal at the Pentagon. I'm relatively neutral on the remote control issue but Zakheim is often mentioned in this context.

I can't believe Cofer Black is still on the scene. You would almost prefer Obama in the White House, but that's part of the whole scarecrow strategy to force people to cuddle up to the so-called "lesser of two evils", which we all know by now, given Obama's egregious campaign of liberticide, is a pointless, defeatist exercise.